Breaking Down Comey's Testimony With Wake Forest Law Professor

Former FBI Director James Comey's testimony with the Senate Intelligence Committee lasted about two and a half hours Thursday morning.

We heard a lot about Russia and their involvement in our election. We heard about Hillary Clinton's email scandal and Comey's handling of that investigation. We also heard a lot about President Trump potentially trying to influence investigations into Russia and his former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn. But Professor Kami Chavis with Wake Forest University School of Law says the most profound takeaway is actually hearing for the first time how uncomfortable Comey was during his meetings with President Trump.

"It's very interesting and rare in Director Comey's own words, that he felt the need to draft a contemporaneous memo because he said he felt he might need this later in order to maintain the integrity of an investigation."

The big question - does anything Comey said implicate President Trump or anyone in his administration for obstruction of justice?

That's an answer we still don't have. Chavis says you have to prove intent when it comes to determining whether or not a person obstructed justice - and Comey's testimony did not do that. It only told us how he felt, but what he says opens the door to more avenues in the investigation.

"I think former director Comey's testimony is the tip of a really large iceberg here," Chavis explains. "I think there's a lot of things with in the written and oral testimony that the Senate Intelligence Committee is going to be following up on."

Chavis says this could very well boil down to a "he said, he said" type of investigaton and she expects the Committee to start looking into the inconsistencies between what we've heard from the White House and what we've now heard from Comey.